Author Topic: Does the God of the Bible exist  (Read 3752 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1588
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #116 on: April 27, 2012, 10:14:17 PM »
Here is an example:

Quote
The newly released documentary "Expelled" blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma.
 
The movie reveals that even Darwinists themselves, when attempting to be open-minded, are often removed from their positions for daring to allow other points of view. A recent example is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who was forced to resign within a couple of days after suggesting that creation and ID should be discussed in classrooms (he proposed this so that they could be countered!)."

I then provide a link:  http://creation.com/is-evolution-scientific

The reply:
Quote
Sternberg in particular claimed to have had his 'keys' taken away from his access to a museums displays because he dared 'talk' about intelligent design.

What really happened is that his keys were replaced with magnetic swipe card and he had access all along.   He also claimed to be a member of the institute, but his actual position was temporary from the very beginning.  He turned entirely clerical changes in an office space into a full blown conspiracy

Where is the proof?  None is given.  It's only a statement that is stated as fact and I am supposed to accept it.

I reply again:
Quote
You are simply incorrect, or are lying.

I provide another link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7619670.stm

But I am wrong? 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #117 on: April 27, 2012, 10:27:54 PM »
He does have a genuine point that was not addressed.

It appears to him that genuine scientists believe in creationism. They appear educated, so how can he decide which team is lying? The controversy persists. Where there is smoke, there is fire (supposedly). This is actually quite a complex problem.

In the global warming "debate", the "solution" is that the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that anthropogenic GW is true. Therefore we should trust the scientists. The layman is not really equipped to work his way through all the science. All he can really see is that those who seem to be "skeptics" seem to lie an awful lot, but this does not mean that their whole argument is a lie. Pro-warming scientists have also been caught (once) "hiding the decline". So, you can't judge the issue by who gets caught lying, either.

Typically, a layman decides what he wants to be true, and then draws "facts" and emotional support from the side that he wants to be true.

There are a number of brainless "controversies" that should have been decided, but seem to keeping "getting oxygen":

911
JFK
MMR vaccine causing autism
Homeopathy
Astrology
Aspartame
Canola
Engines that run on water being suppressed
Masons worshipping Lucifer
Chiropracty

These are just a few of them. No matter how vacuous the controversy, the leading proponents will always be able to brow-beat and intimidate most laymen into believing that they have a point. It's only the extremely well-equipped and cynical that would take on any of these aggressive proponents. When you do so, there ends up being blood on the floor.

Point 1: The existence of an interminable controversy in no way indicates that there is validity to the argument. Proponents are capable of holding absurd beliefs in the face of just about any attack. (Even though their position can be eviscerated with simple arguments.)

Point 2: The existence of innumerable controversies (some listed above) in no way implies that the mainstream has a habit (or is even capable) of suppressing various information. Therefore it cannot be inductively presumed that the Creationism/Evolution "debate" is "just another" conspiracy, if you do not have firm evidence that any/many of the other controversies are actually real. People who believe in conspiracy theories have a supporting habit of believing that there are lots of publicly known conspiracies.

So, how do you decide which is correct? There are several solutions.

1. Science is accountable, and always leaves a track you can follow yourself. You CAN do this.
2. You can start counting the lies, and become cynical. In the case of Creationism, the lies are so thick, you need a ticker counter to keep up with them. You can keep score, and not excuse your own side for lying. You are perfectly free to dismiss BOTH SIDES. There is no obligation (or logic) to believe the opposition, once you have dismissed one side.
3. You can start respecting our current great minds. You don't have to believe them, but the fact that great people believe these things means that you are not going to be able to find an easy way to refute them. If you are determined, all you can conclude without research yourself, is that you do not know. There is no magic way of knowing, by believing what you want to believe, or by copying those who you want to believe.

If you think that this leaves some doubt in a layman, then this is correct. Science is about attempting to refute your own position, and it's something that pseudoscientists never do, because their beliefs can't stand any form of criticism.

END OF POINTLESS RANT.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #118 on: April 27, 2012, 10:33:12 PM »
BTW, you are quite able to start debating Lucifer at any time. Just start a thread, and the mods will relocate it to the debate room, or we will try and stay out of it. The debate has been fair so far, because you have not been silenced. Make sure you frame the argument in rough terms in the title.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1588
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #119 on: April 27, 2012, 11:13:57 PM »
He does have a genuine point that was not addressed.

It appears to him that genuine scientists believe in creationism. They appear educated, so how can he decide which team is lying? The controversy persists. Where there is smoke, there is fire (supposedly). This is actually quite a complex problem.

Bingo!  At least this is part of it and I don't have a professor to teach me so I can make my own completely educated decision as to the extent the theory of evolution is true.

Global warming is another good one.  Although I tend to agree that it is happening, there is doubt in my mind.

And no, I don't believe evolution, big bang, etc., are conspiracies and I'm not a person that looks for them.  But I also don't think the opponents of it are doing it for the sake of conspiracy either.  I mean, at least not all of them.

Quote
Typically, a layman decides what he wants to be true, and then draws "facts" and emotional support from the side that he wants to be true.

I'm not convinced it's only laymen that do this.

Quote
  You can start counting the lies, and become cynical. In the case of Creationism, the lies are so thick, you need a ticker counter to keep up with them.

This is what I have done with the myriads of christian denominations. But I have not been able to disprove Jehovah's Witnesses.  Or at least I can't dispove their interpretation of the Bible.  If the Bible is correct then the Witnesses are correct.  At least as far as I can tell and I have no nagging unanswered questions as I did before learning their doctrine.  And it's hard for me to dismiss the Bible.  66 books by numerous authors over a long span of time is put together and forms a coherent book with one coherent message.  This in itself makes it hard to dismiss.  That's whithout getting into what it actually says.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1588
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #120 on: April 27, 2012, 11:17:04 PM »
BTW, you are quite able to start debating Lucifer at any time. Just start a thread, and the mods will relocate it to the debate room, or we will try and stay out of it. The debate has been fair so far, because you have not been silenced. Make sure you frame the argument in rough terms in the title.

I just make the topic on this board?
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #121 on: April 27, 2012, 11:24:06 PM »
I post a site with numbers on it.

Posting random websites while not citing anything relevant to the information on that link is not an argument to or for anything; more importantly many people addressed your citation and pointed out that the website in question had nothing to do with evolutionary science.  The only problem is your total ignorance regarding the subject, as well as tendency to lie and equivocate.

You had plenty of chances to respond to half a dozen individuals pointing out the same problems.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #122 on: April 27, 2012, 11:26:23 PM »
BTW, you are quite able to start debating Lucifer at any time. Just start a thread, and the mods will relocate it to the debate room, or we will try and stay out of it. The debate has been fair so far, because you have not been silenced. Make sure you frame the argument in rough terms in the title.

I just make the topic on this board?

Might as well. I'm sure Lucifer will spot it. Just state that you will ignore other interjections, and hope that it gets relocated to the debate room. (Not that this is a feature, because then people tend to miss it.)

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #123 on: April 27, 2012, 11:33:21 PM »
The newly released documentary "Expelled" blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma

This is just a blind assertion, one that took you probably a few seconds to 'google' and then copy paste.. without even demonstrating that you've read it or what is supposed to be significant about it.  We already know about this hideously dishonest video, I've seen it and tore it apart in the past. 

The criticism of the video is as follows:
1. It makes no attempt to address what evolution is or what is wrong with evolution; it uses loaded terminology and incredulous denials in the place of reasonable arguments for anything.  It even concludes upon associating evolution/scientist with nazis

2. The claims about ID people being discriminated against were simply not true in any case, many of which were blatantly outright lies ( like the case with sternberg ).  This information is readily available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Richard_Sternberg

Quote
Expelled features excerpts from an interview Stein conducted with Richard Sternberg, described as an evolutionary biologist and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views. Sternberg defended his decision, stating that Intelligent Design was not the overall subject of the paper (being mentioned only at the end) and that he was attempting merely to present questions ID proponents had raised as a topic for discussion. He presented himself and Meyer as targets of religious and political persecution, claiming the chairman of his department referred to him as an "intellectual terrorist". Stein states that the paper "ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began", and goes beyond the findings of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to claim that Sternberg was "terrorized".[28] Stein further alleges that Congressman Mark Souder uncovered a campaign by the Smithsonian and the NCSE to destroy Sternberg's credibility, though he does not provide any details.

Sternberg, a staff scientist for the National Center for Biotechnology Information and himself a fellow of the intelligent design advocacy group ISCID, had resigned his position at the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington six months before publication of the Meyers paper. The Council of the Biological Society of Washington has stated that Sternberg circumvented the journal's standard reviewing process to include the controversial paper. Although in the film Stein says the paper "suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began", it discussed the much later development of phyla during the Cambrian explosion and deviated from the journal's topic of systematics to introduce previously discredited claims about bioinformatics. The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.[44][45] Sternberg, contrary to the impression given by the film, was not an employee, but an unpaid "Research Associate" at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, a post which only ran for a limited period. Also contrary to way his career was depicted in the film, Sternberg still retained this position until 2007, when he was given the offer of continuing as a research collaborator.[28][46] He continued to have full access to research facilities at the museum as of April 2008.[47]

The documentation was provided by the institute itself.

Sternberg lied literally.. about everything, even construing changes in office space that effected the whole department as individually targeting him.  The same goes ( mostly ) for the rest of the people involved.

The film does nothing but appeal to an audience of people ( like yourself ) that are totally uneducated with regards to basic science, or scientific subjects like 'evolution'.  It portrays a fake controversy, based on misconstruing totally asinine events and making emotional appeals based off that implied discrimination to the same science illiterate audience.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #124 on: April 27, 2012, 11:35:54 PM »
You also didn't address your willful lying.  Which I'm posting it again because you went out of your way to ignore it, by first misconstruing what I was stating through omission.. then pretending like you hadn't done what you had just admitted too.

So you were intentionally lying, pretending to be stupid?

In it's simplest form evolution means change.  By this definition I did neither.

You just admitted that you did lie and that you did know better.

You are right about my knowledge of evolution.  I do actually realize that the Big Bang is separate.  It's just that a certain dogmatic someone gets under my skin.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #125 on: April 27, 2012, 11:47:09 PM »
Creationist do not make credible scientific arguments and have no place in the world of academia.

This is simply your opinion.  In my opinion you are incorrect.

It is fact.  The largest creationist organization in the states is Answers in Genesis, they are more well funded then the National Institute of Health funds various kinds of cancer research.. yet they do not operate any kind of peer review publication, research lab, or actively seek to publish peer review science articles at all.

The various claims of creationist are almost always falsehoods regarding evolution or ignorance laced diatribes attacking basic science.  They are left to fringe elements with no relevant basis in academia.

If you think you have a 'scientific' creationist claim.. please feel free to provide it.

Quote
Quote
Which one are you saying is not observed?

One species evolving to become another.  Or is that some other theory?

Speciation; and yes.. speciation is observed.

There are multiple kinds of speciation.

Allopatric, Peripatric, Parapatric, and Sympatric.  ( There could be and probably very well is .. more )

These only represent what I've hypothesized, observed, and have produced as part of the overwhelming basis of evolution as a theory ( research field )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Allopatric
Main article: allopatric speciation

During allopatric (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patr?, "fatherland") speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

Observed instances

Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, for example on Komodo. The Galápagos islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Galápagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that Finches differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Galápagos birds were all species of finches. Though the finches were less important for Darwin, more recent research has shown the birds now known as Darwin's finches to be a classic case of adaptive evolutionary radiation.[6]

Peripatric
Main article: Peripatric speciation

In peripatric speciation, a subform of allopatric speciation, new species are formed in isolated, smaller peripheral populations that are prevented from exchanging genes with the main population. It is related to the concept of a founder effect, since small populations often undergo bottlenecks. Genetic drift is often proposed to play a significant role in peripatric speciation.

Observed instances

    Mayr bird fauna[citation needed]
    The Australian bird Petroica multicolor
    Reproductive isolation occurs in populations of Drosophila subject to population bottlenecking

Parapatric
Main article: Parapatric speciation

In parapatric speciation, there is only partial separation of the zones of two diverging populations afforded by geography; individuals of each species may come in contact or cross habitats from time to time, but reduced fitness of the heterozygote leads to selection for behaviours or mechanisms that prevent their inter-breeding. Parapatric speciation is modelled on continuous variation within a "single", connected habitat acting as a source of natural selection rather than the effects of isolation of habitats produced in peripatric and allopatric speciation.

Ecologists refer to parapatric and peripatric speciation in terms of ecological niches. A niche must be available in order for a new species to be successful.

Observed instances

    Ring species
        The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
        The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California.
        The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas.
    the grass Anthoxanthum has been known to undergo parapatric speciation in such cases as mine contamination of an area.

Main article: Sympatric speciation

Sympatric speciation refers to the formation of two or more descendant species from a single ancestral species all occupying the same geographic location.

In sympatric speciation, species diverge while inhabiting the same place. Often-cited examples of sympatric speciation are found in insects that become dependent on different host plants in the same area.[7][8] However, the existence of sympatric speciation as a mechanism of speciation is still hotly contested. People have argued that the evidences of sympatric speciation are in fact examples of micro-allopatric, or heteropatric speciation. The most widely accepted example of sympatric speciation is that of the cichlids of Lake Nabugabo in East Africa, which is thought to be due to sexual selection.

Until recently, there has a been a dearth of strong evidence that supports this form of speciation, with a general feeling that interbreeding would soon eliminate any genetic differences that might appear. But there has been at least one recent study that suggests that sympatric speciation has occurred in Tennessee cave salamanders.[9]

Sympatric speciation driven by ecological factors may also account for the extraordinary diversity of crustaceans living in the depths of Siberia's Lake Baikal.



Quote
Quote
You don't 'see' something for it to be 'science'.  You can observe something either directly or indirectly

One species evolving into another cannot be observed either way.

It can and already has, there are many examples above, as well as countless more.

Quote
Quote
Can you even describe anything that has anything to do with evolution?

I have.

No, you haven't.  You have never adequately described anything that has anything to do with science or specifically evolution.  All you seem to know is a half ass series of labels and your ability to google the quickest anti-science creationist website.  You don't even demonstrate enough responsibility to even read what you're posting or explain what is supposed to be relevant in the links you come up.

Its just random bullshit.

Quote
Quote
Evolution being true or false, has nothing to do with your god claim being true.

This is a type of fallacy called a false dichotomy, you're intentionally limiting the choices two binary options that do not follow from the evidence or are not rational in any sense.  Hence that's why I asked you what do any of your claims have to do with a god existing or not existing when I first responded to you.

It would mean he is lying and therefore the God of the Bible would not exist as he is described in the Bible.  He did not say he evolved man.....unless I missed that part.

Then your disagreement isn't with 'evolution' its with the entirety of science.  Virtually every field of science disagrees with a literal interpretation of the bible.  Attacking through dishonest and personal incredulity evolution is just a larger red herring to the fact that its just really about your science denial.

You also didn't address the other false dichotomy you're presenting where you're supposing that the only choices available are no god or the biblical god.  You're ignoring the fact that there are an infinite number of god claims to insert.

Quote
This is my last post to you.  I have a theory that no discussion I have with you is going to be constructive or beneficial. 

It being constructive is directly proportional to you answering questions sincerely and to refraim from further equivocating.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6462
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #126 on: April 27, 2012, 11:48:05 PM »
Jstwebbrowsing

You seem to be under the impression that species changes take place in one generation. That one day a hippo has a little whale baby and that is that.

Hence you are confused about how such a thing could happen.

Because what you are picturing is not the case. And unless your google skills are adequate, you are likely getting misinformation about such things. Or just guessing. In either case, you have the process of evolution either too simplified or just plain wrong.

For animals such as humans, it takes tens of thousands of years for species changes to take place. The changes are slow and of little consequence from generation to generation. But eventually any given critter can be so different from its fore bearers that it is no longer what its ancestors were.

Life has had billions of years to play around with genes. Not deliberately. It just happens because there is nothing to prevent such changes. Well, there are a lot of things that prevent most changes from making any difference. Because most are not beneficial, and in fact are often fatal. But some come through in the clutch and give animals new talents or abilities or attributes that make it clearly different from the animals the critter came from over previous 50-100,000 years. The genetic makeup finally diverges so greatly that not only is the critter different, but so too is its genetic makeup.

Bacteria and viruses do this much faster, because they reproduce very quickly. Hence we have bird flu, which was never seen to spread via human contact, now spreading via human contact. It has evolved to do so. Some species of bird flu still cannot infect a human unless a person comes in contact with an infected bird. But the new strains of the virus can move between humans, and hence are a different species. And that speciation has happened in your lifetime.

Hippos to elephants? Not so much.

Get used to it. Every part of your body has adjusted to the reality of evolution except your brain's thought processes. Get in step with your own biology. You'll feel much better.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #127 on: April 27, 2012, 11:49:53 PM »
But I have not been able to disprove Jehovah's Witnesses. 

In what ways have you tried?

Or at least I can't dispove their interpretation of the Bible. 

How would a person go about "disproving" anyone's interpretation of the bible?

If the Bible is correct then the Witnesses are correct.

1. the bible is incorrect.
2. there are somewhere around 38,000 denominations of xianity.  According to wikipedia, there are about 7.6 million jws.  Are you telling me that of all the people who have studied the bible, and of all the people on the planet, just this tiny slim majority got it "right"?  We pejoratively call that a "magic decoder ring".


forms a coherent book with one coherent message. 

It doesn't.  The various writers have very different messages that conflict. Some of them despised each other.

This in itself makes it hard to dismiss.  That's whithout getting into what it actually says.

Well, what it actually says is what makes it so easy to dismiss.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #128 on: April 27, 2012, 11:55:46 PM »
Answers in genesis ( the largest remaining creationist organization ) currently has expenses in excess of 20+ million dollars and routinely hit 28 million in total combined assets.

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/cincinnati/religious/answers-in-genesis-of-kentucky-inc-in-petersburg-ky-8930

That alone is exponentially many times over the amount of money a single lab might receive at a university or through federal funding, a single GOOD lab might receive 50k or a 100k which is 400 times below the amount of money that goes into expenses for AiG.

The amount is also larger then some individual research grants given to thousands of labs meant to research public health interests like cancer and disease:

http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

Yet.. with all this money.. they can't seem to find a single person willing to actually do research, produce testable scientific results, and then publish them in into any kind of peer review journal.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 12:13:03 AM by Omen »
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #129 on: April 27, 2012, 11:58:47 PM »
Here is an example:

Quote
The newly released documentary "Expelled" blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma.
 
The movie reveals that even Darwinists themselves, when attempting to be open-minded, are often removed from their positions for daring to allow other points of view. A recent example is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who was forced to resign within a couple of days after suggesting that creation and ID should be discussed in classrooms (he proposed this so that they could be countered!)."

I then provide a link:  http://creation.com/is-evolution-scientific

The reply:
Quote
Sternberg in particular claimed to have had his 'keys' taken away from his access to a museums displays because he dared 'talk' about intelligent design.

What really happened is that his keys were replaced with magnetic swipe card and he had access all along.   He also claimed to be a member of the institute, but his actual position was temporary from the very beginning.  He turned entirely clerical changes in an office space into a full blown conspiracy

Where is the proof?  None is given.  It's only a statement that is stated as fact and I am supposed to accept it.

I reply again:
Quote
You are simply incorrect, or are lying.

I provide another link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7619670.stm

But I am wrong?

The links you have posted have been wrong and outright deceitful. And not just sort of deceitful. Obvious to anyone who actually bothered to look them up dishonest. Just as you have been. To go back to your first post again. The link you posted had nothing to do with evolution despite the title it had, and the fact that you posted it as proof against evolution. Which you knew, as you have admitted to knowing that evolution has nothing to do with that links subject. Leaving aside the fact that you're clearly a liar, what is someone supposed to prove in order to refute it? It doesn't talk about the subject that it says it is talking about. It provides no evidence for anything it says. It quote mines and mixes quotes, it demonstrates no knowledge of the subject it is talking about. Why would one have to prove it wrong when there is absolutely no veracity to the claims it is making in the first place?

There's no need to prove it wrong because it doesn't even make it's case in the first place.

Your other links provided so far have been just like the first. They don't even understand the position they are trying to argue against. They can't even use the words right using words like "Darwinist" or "evolutionist" (which isn't even a real word in the english language). How does one prove something wrong when it can't prove it was right in the first place?
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #130 on: April 28, 2012, 02:21:50 AM »
Jstwebbrowsing, it's rude to keep people waiting. Just PM a moderator or read the Debate board and post (don't start a new thread) in the appropriate thread to request a one-on-one debate with yours truly.
I only demand one thing for the rules of the debate (aside from the obvious ones like no dodging, et cetera):
You will not quote entire websites and/or post links to them to make your argument[1]. You will use your own words, and so will I. Note that if you do post something as if it were yours but then it turns out it had just been copy/pasted from a website, I will make[2] you rewrite it in your own words. If I wanted to debate the owner of a website, I'd do it on my own.
 1. By that I mean that you won't just post a quote along with a link to the website; you must write something in your own words, but you can add the link as a source, obviously.
 2. In the metaphorical sense. I mean that I won't reply until you rewrite it.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 02:23:35 AM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #131 on: April 28, 2012, 06:34:17 AM »
Well for one I don't believe this debate here to be fair.  All over this forum you see references and encouragements to use Google and suchlike things.  However, I evidently am not allowed to do so unless I am looking for proof that athiests are right.

Not much has been presented to me other than statements presented as fact.  There is nothing really given to back up these statements.  This debate would actually be much easier if those are the rules.  I could just simply say "I am right, you are wrong" and win the debate.  This is pretty much the arguments I've seen used against me. 

I post a site with numbers on it.  I get the reply.  "Oh that's wrong, he doesn't know what he's talking about." yet there is no proof given.  This banter goes on and on and on, especially from one particular individual.  If you know who I'm talking about then you know I'm right.

What about my statement in your other thread about morality & the bible. I provided back up to my own claims, but I've yet to see you address them. If you want to talk about fair, you expect us to answer your questions, we spend time doing it (and in my case, spend time digging out quotes from the bible) to give you a full and detailed answer but you won't put the time in to address the response.

Unfortunately this is quite common for theists here and people quite frankly get sick of it. Maybe that's why they don't take so much time out to get their back up. Heck in this thread I demonstrated the scientific process and addressed how Creation Science is not in fact science (as you used creationist sources), but you decided to not address that too. I would have happily dug out sources from the world of science to explain the scientific process if my image and explanation did not suffice. However, I don't like to waste my time, so I'm not going to back everything up straight away, unless I am challenged to provide the back up. I make sure with each statement I make that I am able to do so and I try and make sure anything I've got is reliable as not every source is reliable.
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #132 on: April 28, 2012, 07:06:20 AM »


I post a site with numbers on it.  I get the reply.  "Oh that's wrong, he doesn't know what he's talking about." yet there is no proof given.  This banter goes on and on and on, especially from one particular individual.  If you know who I'm talking about then you know I'm right.
Just cause it is on the net is no proof of anything. You will run across peer reviewed soon. Or maybe someone explained it above.

Retired math professors calculating evolution or climate change is not peer reviewed.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 07:16:01 AM by Tero »

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5014
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #133 on: April 28, 2012, 07:45:27 AM »
My opinion is yes.  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific. ...

This topic is too broad for a forum discussion and worse, was poorly initiated. You stated you arrived at your conclusion through the process of elimination, yet only gave one step of your process. Just discussing that one step cold produce many pages of arguments. You should have thought it out better and summarized all the steps so the members could base their responses on your perceived ability to form a conclusion from what all your steps were. This is going nowhere as it is, because as I said the topic is too broad and requires too many aspects to handle in a single thread.

I suggest you either select one member to debate the topic in a debate room thread or we close this topic so next time you can think about what you can handle in a single thread. Let us know in this thread what you are willing to do.


« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 07:47:14 AM by HAL »

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Darwins +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #134 on: April 28, 2012, 08:44:20 AM »
This is what I have done with the myriads of christian denominations. But I have not been able to disprove Jehovah's Witnesses.  Or at least I can't dispove their interpretation of the Bible.  If the Bible is correct then the Witnesses are correct.  At least as far as I can tell and I have no nagging unanswered questions as I did before learning their doctrine.  And it's hard for me to dismiss the Bible.  66 books by numerous authors over a long span of time is put together and forms a coherent book with one coherent message.  This in itself makes it hard to dismiss.  That's whithout getting into what it actually says.
I would like to comment on this since I'm always wondering how anyone could be awed by this.

That the bible consists of 66 books written by different authors over a long span of time is not really something that would lend any credibility to the bible as being a revelation of divine truths. How hard is it to write a roughly coherent story if all of the involved authors had access to everything that has been written by the authors before them? How miraculous is a roughly coherent story compiled of 66 books if the books have been edited for centuries and books that don't fit in have been left out of the "official" story collection?

So I have to say that I'm rather underwhelmed by the bible being comprised of 66 books written over a long period of time.

I would have been impressed if one part of the bible had been written in the middle east, one found in northern Europe, one discovered in an ancient Chinese burial mound and a fourth piece had been unearthed in a crumbled Mayan temple and despite being completely isolated from each other in time and place of creation, all the pieces would have fit together perfectly as if they had been written by the same author in one go.

Now THAT would be impressive.
The bible? Not so much.
Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4613
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #135 on: April 28, 2012, 01:40:50 PM »

 JsT

 does the common cold virus or influenza "evolve" to stay alive? We have to create flu vaccines yearly to treat the evolved form of the virus...and the common cold virus  cant be cured because it "evolves" from season to season as well.
 
 Then there are other pathogens that become resistant to antibiotics,how do they do it.do they just become determined not to be killed of by the medicine or do they evolve and become stronger through genetic changes?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1588
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #136 on: April 28, 2012, 03:18:55 PM »
Okay guys, I've been asleep and then at work.  I work Sat-Wed.  So sorry I have kept people waiting. 

People keep bringing up I've not answered their posts.  If I have done so then I apologize.  I have tended to respond to a small few posters in threads.  Truthfully I get overwhelmed.  Often times I can't even make a most without being warned that 3-4 new posts have been made while I am typing.  Some needed responses have slipped through the cracks.  I am not trying to ignore you.  If you are still waiting for me to respond to one of your posts then please let me know in a PM and I will do best to make a reply.

For now let me catch up since last night.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #137 on: April 28, 2012, 04:05:47 PM »
Jst, if you have not figured it out yet, these guys are not interested in politeness or excuses, just debate.

Good luck.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6681
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #138 on: April 28, 2012, 04:08:49 PM »
So, JST is a Witness. Well, well, well.

I was raised a JW. Knew nothing else but how to be a Witness for Jehovah, morning, noon and night, 24-7. No birthdays, no Christmas, no Halloween.[1] Lots of Kingdom Hall and house-to-housing. Lots of praying. Lots of reading Awake and Watchtower and the blue Truth book and the orange Paradise book. And the green bible. And the daily text.

And I had figured out it was baloney by age ten.
They told us that the fossils in museums were all fakes. They told us that scientists put random bones together to look like animals that never existed. (Why? Satan of course.) They told us there had never been any dinosaurs, because the bible did not talk about them, and the earth was not old enough for them to have been around.

It took one school field trip to the Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with a lecture by a scientist who explained the fossils to us. As I sat on the giant dino leg bone that they had made into a bench, I knew that what the scientist said was true. The JW's were full of it, and did not even know it.

They also told us the world would end in 1974. Waking up in 1975 pretty much clinched that for me.

Since the JW's are still around, I guess they have changed their minds on the fossils and dinosaurs and end of the world thing. But still holding the line on evolution. Okay. &)
 1. Kids egged our house for not giving out treats.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #139 on: April 28, 2012, 05:27:54 PM »
Jst, if you have not figured it out yet, these guys are not interested in politeness or excuses, just debate.

Good luck.

Oh please. You get called on your ridiculous and uninformed claims and now suddenly you're making blanket claims about the entire forum?

Are you really that pathetic?

Politeness is something that is not a given. A person who lies and misrepresents the truth is not someone who deserves politeness because he is already being insulting to the person he is dealing with. The same holds true for a person who makes unsupported claims and admits to wallowing in his own ignorance.

But more to the point, where do you get off making a statement like this about every other person here? Personally I certainly don't care about politeness either way. I only care whether a person has intellectual integrity, their level of politeness is irrelevant. So you would be correct in my case. But to blanketly make the statement in regards to everyone is not only profoundly dickish, it's an outright lie. There's a thread right now ( which you were taking part in remember) engineered towards making things easier on the theists here. Go back in the past threads in the corner. Being nicer and more respectful comes up so often that I stopped paying attention to those threads almost entirely.

There are a lot of people here who care very much about showing the respect to others that they believe is deserved another human being. There are many examples of politeness form the other members (take just about anything posted by Quesi for example).

Just because you seem to have a problem with me and a couple of others actually requesting that you be held to account for your words (which seems to be a surprising shock to you for someone who claims to be a scientist) when you speak, don't start insulting everyone. Take it up with the people you have a problem.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1588
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #140 on: April 28, 2012, 06:11:05 PM »
Omen: I appreciate the effort you have given in your last couple posts.  They are almost helpful to me.  I will explain "almost toward the end of this post".

Parkingplaces:  I appreciate your post in that I can actually understand what you are saying.  No I don't think evolution takes place in one generation and what you say sounds reasonable.

I do not disagree that evolution takes place.  I can use your example of a virus.  I don't doubt that a virus can evolve or mutate and does.  But it's still a virus is what I can't get out of my head.

ScrewtapeOkay.  I had to find if there were any that I would agree with.  I guess I am uniqely gifted in my ability to look beyond someone's words and get the meaning they were trying to put forth.  But disproving them is not far from the truth at least to me.  I realize I am the most ignorant of fools, but that's all I've got to work with.  But just to let you know my precess.....

For me there was certain criteria that must be met for the interpretation to be correct. 

1.  It must not contradict itself.   
2.  It must be logical.  I know......the entire Bible is illogical but bare with me.
3.  It must be reasonable.
4.  It must be knowledgable

Example:  If people die and immediately go to heaven or hell then why is there a resurrection at the end for Judgement Day.  Obviously they would have already been judged.  So why judge them again?  If Lazarus was in heaven for three days then why was resurrecting him a service to him?

This obviously is illogical and contradictory.  So since most christians roughly believe this way and will only address the question as, "I'll ask God when I get there.  It's probably not good that you pose these questions",  the field of possibilities greatly narrow.  Although these are not the only illogical contradictions common in christendom.

I believe that's pretty much the the sum of it.

Quote
there are somewhere around 38,000 denominations of xianity.  According to wikipedia, there are about 7.6 million jws.  Are you telling me that of all the people who have studied the bible, and of all the people on the planet, just this tiny slim majority got it "right"?  We pejoratively call that a "magic decoder ring".

My logic was quite the opposite.  Surely you know the Bible says "narrow is the road leading off into life and few are those traveling on it," and "broad is the road leading off into desctruction and many are those traveling on it," (Please note word destruction and not hell). 

But apart from what the Bible says, I am scared to think of how many different Bible interpretations exist and the number of denominations that exist is staggering.  So here was my process.......1. They can't all be correct.  2.  Some must be closer than others.  3.  Some must be the closest.  Would you expect this to be a majority?  I don't.

To address you next two points is not within the scope of this post.

Omen I admit that 22 million is a lot, but that's small compared to the numbers in the second link.

Where is the link supporting your last statement?

Alzael The second link is to a news page.  Now I know I should have learned by now not to trust the new but my intention was not to deceive.

Why does the link to the evolution page have nothing to do with evolution?  I didn't check the references it sited.  Did you check them and find them to be false?

Seppuku I will have to check the other thread.

HAL I agree.  Please lock the thread.  I will start a new thread.

Asmoday I can't state with certainty with verifying but I don't believe all the authors had all the scriptures available to them at the time of writing.  Regardless, this is not proof in itself, but just a small strand of evidence.

12 Monkeys I've addressed this above.

I wish to withdraw from the debate with Lucifer.  In another thread, "Being nice to theists", or something of the sort, he basically argued it is impossible to be nice.  A poster recommended the discussions be made without attacking the character of the theist.  The poster was quickly torn to pieces.  I was not surprised to see his karmaat -49. 

Watch this, I'm about to use that unique gift again.  What it really boils down to is respect.  This is what the poster wanted you to show.  But according to the debate that ensued it is impossible for Lucifer, and others here to show respect.  In fact, it seems that many go out of their way to be just the opposite.  Reading his post immediately disarmed me personally.  So there is evidence supporting his claim that you CAN do it.

I stated in my introduction that I am not highly educated.  I am a high school graduate with some technical training.  In an effort to show off your education your language does not convey your thoughts properly and I know you are very well aware of this.  I'm sure it makes you feel good about yourself but beyond that it is pointless.  The same goes for your ability to grasp what I am saying.  Your attitude does not affect me in any emotional way.  I do marvel at your intelligence and education on occasion, but most of the time I marvel at your utter lack of wisdom and I wonder how intelligence and wisdom can be so far removed from each other.  I must form a hypothesis.  Could any of you help me with that?

All of you have not displayed this behavior only the majority.  So please speak in layman's terms.  I've even seen Steven Hawking do this on a documentary series about how the universe works.  So I know you can do it.  The layout of this site suggested I might be, at least somewhat, welcome here.  If I am not then please tell me so and I will leave.  If I am then I expect to be shown some respect or we have nothing to discuss.

Disclaimer: I am not proof reading this post.

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #141 on: April 28, 2012, 06:14:55 PM »
ScrewtapeOkay.  I had to find if there were any that I would agree with.  I guess I am uniqely gifted in my ability to look beyond someone's words and get the meaning they were trying to put forth.

Reading between the lines doesn't work when there are no lines. It's called "projection".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5014
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #142 on: April 28, 2012, 06:16:00 PM »
HAL I agree.  Please lock the thread.  I will start a new thread.

I will lock this thread in a couple of hours.

I hope you have learned how to formulate a focused topic that can be adequately discussed in a thread. We look forward to your new topic.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #143 on: April 28, 2012, 06:24:54 PM »
Alzael Why does the link to the evolution page have nothing to do with evolution?  I didn't check the references it sited.  Did you check them and find them to be false?


It has nothing to do with evolution because it does not talk about evolution. It's very simple. It has evolution in the title, however the calculations it cites refer to the possibility of a universe forming that is condusive to life. As does it's arguments. The beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution, hence the link has nothing to do with evolution.

As for finding them false. Short answer: Yes I checked and they were lies. Long answer: See my previous post where I went over the site and explained it all.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #144 on: April 28, 2012, 06:49:55 PM »
Jst, I just wanted to say, before this thread is closed, that I really appreciated your long and honest post.  While I do not agree with all of the content, your words are respectful, thoughtful, and clearly represent a considerable amount of effort. 

I hope you stick around here for a while.  I also hope that after getting a better feel for the environment, you do take part in a debate. 

I'm pretty sure that hanging out on this forum is a lot harder than knocking on doors. 

When all of the atheists here really piss you off (and we will do that) I bet Magicmiles wouldn't mind getting a private message from you asking for support. 

Also, may I recommend paying special attention to posts by nogodsforme.  As a former JW, and a really smart woman, I think she has an interesting perspective to offer you.